Some of our Clerics are no Different from the Taliban

In the course of the ninth presidential elections in Iran in 2005, prior to Mehdi Karubi’s quip that dosing for just a few hours during the election could alter its outcome and cause Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s majority votes to emerge from the ballot boxes, Dr Abdolkarim Soroosh told Rooz that supporters of Ahmadinejad deserved only one term: fascism. Four years later, in a new interview, Soroosh tells Rooz that “a bad person finds the worst weapon in religion so as to commit the worst crimes in the name of religion, to kill humans, to torture, to be a bully, all in the name of God.” Soroosh has also said, “I believe that the game of elections is the game of democracy and democracy always begins from a weak position and gradually strengthens itself.” Read on for the exchange.

 

Rooz: I would like to begin this interview with what appears to be west’s special attention to what you call “religious revival”. Is this true, and why?

 

Abdolkarim Soroosh: Yes, but unfortunately the West’s attention to Islam and religious revival does not have a good foundation. I mean it has begun from a point that we do not like which is from the Taliban. So West’s identity is now encountering a new identity which consists of Taliban’s identity of challenge. The world of Islam is going through a strange period and in any account, the revolution in Iran has played a role and still does in this phenomenon. I am not saying all evil things should be attributed to this revolution, but there is no doubt that this revolution has given Muslims a feeling of a new identity and the courage to express this. The unfortunate part is that this search for identity is taking place through defiance. This is like somebody who wants to show his character to someone but is not using science for it because he knows no science, he is not showing his wealth because he has no wealth and so he only shows and uses his blatant muscle, or force. That is all it has. What the world sees in Taliban is this very muscle force, which is nothing other than violence as we know it. So unfortunately this is the central issue that is seen when one looks at Islam. But we must use this opportunity to show to the world that this is not the case in Islam. The Quran says that when water comes from the sky and creates rivers, a foam fills its top. Seeing only the foam is not a sign of wisdom. One must also look at the water below, set aside the foam, and swim in the clear waters.

 

Rooz: Your situation is complex and difficult. On one hand you must tell Westerners that Islam is not just the foam (i.e. surface) and that there is a water below as well. While on the other hand you must tell those Muslims who themselves comprise this foam – and who are not few in number – that there is a water here as well.

 

Soroosh: Absolutely. The fact is that it is more difficult to confront Muslim opponents because they think they know it all and that they own their territory which others are trying to take away from them and so become more resistant. Still, something needs to be done. I think that religious intellectuals have come forward with a new voice and message. And they have gained importance and attract good attention as a result of which reasonable minds have accepted that it is possible to have a different type of Muslim and there actually are such people.

 

Rooz: What goal are people like you who are in fact the spokespeople for such individuals, and who have this different religious interpretation following?

 

Soroosh: Look, we cannot remove religion from our society and we do not want to do that. This is part of our identity, our culture, our belief and our ideals. Of course when a whole society or a majority of it comes to the conclusion that it wishes to discard religion, then we have a different story. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about a situation where a revolution has taken place in the name of religion and people have shown that despite their differences, they wholeheartedly belong to this set of beliefs. But this set of beliefs is, as I said earlier, just the murky water that is flowing but which must be purified. This purification is of course a difficult task that we must undertake. The foam on top of this water is deep and so it is not something that can be removed overnight or in one year. The foam sometimes appears like the water itself. So it is up to religious innovators to explain that religion too must be reformed.

 

Rooz: Why?

 

Soroosh: Because it brings divine benefits. If I did not believe that there is more to the good of religion than to its bad aspects, I would never believe in the faith. I know that believing in a religion has its negative side as well. It certainly do. There is nothing in this world without its negative aspect. But we have not lost hope in mankind. In the final count, we have concluded that there is more good coming from man than bad. Of course mankind has done some bad things in the name of religion too.

 

Rooz: When you talk of benefits, you are talking about personal things while there are times when religion becomes a tool for political goals and those who stand behind it are … .

 

Soroosh: Look, I know the negative aspects of being religious. But I also believe that these positive and negative issues that exist in a religion also exist in any other political thought as well, only in its own way. In other words the world of secularism too has done its damage. The two world wars were launched by secular thinkers and believers not religious ones. And the number of deaths of these two equaled the total number of deaths of all previous wars. Many of the world’s dictators have been non-religious people.

 

Rooz: The difference is that if you are not religious (in a religious state) then the zealous masses and the state are against the individual.

 

Soroosh: Not so because if you live in Stalinist Russia they would say you are a communist and you would have a bad outcome. What I am saying is that a person must be perceived to be above and beyond this. Wisdom is more important than having a religious. With religion, a good person becomes richer while a bad person becomes worse. This is an important point. It is like wine. Wine strips a person. There is wine even in Paradise, meaning that wine exists in its right place where it can perform constructive deeds. Someone once asked me why is there wine in Paradise but here on earth it is religiously banned, to whom I said that that precisely was the point. It is because in Paradise there were only good people and so wine only improves on and adds to their goodness. But in this world, since the good and bad are mixed and both exist side by side, God has forbidden it here. Religion is the same way. It makes a good person better, and a bad one worse. Religion is the worse tool for a bad person because he can do the worst possible things in its name. He can murder, torture, bully, etc all in the name of God. So religion too strips us, just like wine, like a woman … . In the hands of good people religion can be the best tool to attain goodness. We wash ourselves with water but the water too must be kept clean. We wash ourselves with religion and so must keep our religion clean as well. Religion can be infected too and thus infect a whole world.

 

Rooz: But when good people get to positions of power, they too can turn into bad persons because of the nature of power and then pursue the expansion of their power. Soon, they are left with no option but to remove the public’s possibility of cleansing its religion or keeping it healthy in the name of religion. So the real question then is can power be mixed with religion?

 

Soroosh: What you are asking is whether we can deny religious people the ability to have power and be political. If I am religious and am in a struggle in a democratic system or am fighting a totalitarian order, does any one have the right to tell me that I do not have this right? The important question is what am I supposed to do at the practical level? In other words, the belief in any religion should not be a barrier to come to power.

 

Rooz: But you are saying in a democratic system.

 

Soroosh: Yes, power should not be despotic, nobody should gain his power through his religious belief.

 

Rooz: From where should he get it?

 

Soroosh: From people and from fair politics. Still, nobody should be denied anything because he believes in something. In any case, the boundaries of power and authority must be confined by laws and rules.

 

Rooz: Must this law be mixed with religion, the way it is in our country?

 

Soroosh: This law must have two conditions: It must be accepted by people, and it must not violate human rights. Of course the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not unalterable divine law, , and so it can be modified and changed. I think if these two conditions are met in creating laws, whoever comes to power or office may have a human and popular government.

 

Rooz: This is a democratic government.

 

Soroosh: This is a scientific and ethical administration.

 

Rooz: What do you feel when you hear the term Islamic government?

 

Soroosh: If that means the rule of clerics, then I think it is the most unethical administration on earth. This is because in a clerical rule, the clerics not only view dictatorship to be their right, but their duty which is the worst and most savage form of despotism. But if by Islamic government you mean a government that respects religious values, I see no problems with it. This can be an administration. But we are doing things in a reverse order. What went wrong in our country was that they thought that Islam had to be seen through the eyes of Islamic jurisprudence (figh) which in turn should be viewed through penal laws. In short, two confused views were imposed on us. The reality is that Islam is not limited to its jurisprudence or to penal laws. This is a mistake. What they did was first announce that they wanted to have an Islamic government and then launch its jurisprudence and finally start cutting limbs, stone people to death, etc. This is exactly what happened in our country. The Taliban too defined their Islamic regime in this manner and the world too interpreted it similarly. But if religious government means that people can freely exercise their religious beliefs, then it means a healthy atmosphere in which I can have my own interpretation of religion and have my own way of communicating with my own God, and have a selected moral  life, I consider this to be the best atmosphere and believe that this is the atmosphere that a religious government must create, rather than engage in cutting hands, pulling eyes, stoning people, etc and consider these to be religious necessities. Let me be very frank with you in saying that some of our clerics are no different from the Taliban. What religious new thinkers and intellectuals did in Iran was to put these clerics and their views to shame. In short, it did not allow them to materialize their views, and this was not a small accomplishment. I think what is missing among the Taliban is this religious intellectual activity. They simply do not have such people. So they disseminate the only ideology they have and impose it on society. In Iran’s case, the story is not that the clerics – I am of course not saying all clerics – did not want this, but that they could not impose such a situation on society. A large section of this country’s society stood up to them and took away their drive thus denying them the ability to impose their views on them. If this had not happened, in Iran too you would have been witness to more Taliban type behavior. So we must return to take a look at the clerics as a group of people. In Qom a senior cleric with very open views once frankly told me not to speak my mind to the public and instead talk to them. As simple and categorical as that. So let’s analyze this statement. It means that this group wants to remain closed and secretive. People are not trustworthy, from their perspective, and so they must not feel bold and comfortable to talk of their issues with the clerics. My contention is precisely this, that one of the tasks of the religious intellectual is to open this relationship with the government. From these clerics’ perspective, such an opening is a cardinal sin and is unforgivable.

 

Rooz: So it appears that this opening up of the people to freely speak their mind to the government (and openly raise their issues and demands) is something only those who have risen from the ranks of the religious minds and who understand the language of the government can do.

 

Soroosh: Yes. The government understands this very well as well. It knows that only these religious modernists can open up the people to government relations. Of course they have paid a price for this.

 

Rooz: Let’s talk about elections. What do you think should be done?

 

Soroosh: I have seen friends in Iran who argue that we should not take part in the elections. I have not been convinced with their reasons, however. I understand what they are saying and the perspective from which they view the issue. Generally they believe that elections are something that the regime is launching and so playing their game is really in the final count to their benefit. …

 

Rooz: So it provides legitimacy to the regime.

 

Soroosh: Yes. But when I asked them what then needs to be done, they had no answers. There is no other way, unless one thinks of a revolution, overthrow, etc. I have told these friends a story in which someone dug a hole and soon did not know what to do with the earth that was dug out. Someone told him to dig another hole and put the earth there. You can see the rest of the story. All this person did for the rest of his life was dig holes, putting the earth from a hole into the next hole he had dug. I explained to them that we had launched a revolution and pulled out a lot of earth from the well of society. And now are stuck with the earth and don’t know where to put it. I told them that they were really asking us to dig another hole, but the question would still remain: what to do with the earth from the next hole. We really cannot spend all our life digging holes.

 

Rooz: Some people argue that while digging a hole (i.e. a well) may not reach water but it will keep many busy and bring benefits to some.

 

Soroosh: But there is a worse situation which is that it may not bring benefits to anybody and everyone gets lost in the well. We really cannot continue this hole digging. The reality is that we must engage in this game and strengthen it so much that its results bring real positive benefits. In other words, we must come to a relatively positive point, because the ideal is never attainable. The ideal democracy does not exist anywhere. One must not search for the absolute pure and ideal in this world. For these reasons, when I was in Iran and outside, I have noticed that the calls to boycott have gradually disappeared. Even some of the staunchest boycott advocates now are saying they would not vote, but that they would not ask others not to. I believe that the game of elections is the game of democracy and democracy always begins from a weak point and gains strength only gradually. One must not expect a complete democracy in the beginning of the path. I am of course not saying that there is no difference in who comes to power. There is a difference. I hope from the depths of my heart that Ahmadinejad does not win again. He has disgraced Iran a lot, and he has lied to the people a lot. He has spread plenty of superstition and he has wasted plenty of money from oil sales.

 

Rooz: So who is your favorite among the presidential candidates?

 

Soroosh: Mr. Karubi. Especially as I do not see any new messages in Mr. Mousavi’s words. I don’t see anything special in his actions either. I think he has not relinquished his past views and even though he occasionally presents some new ideas, but the roots are the same old ones and there is concerning roots in his remarks. At the practical level, he sat and watched cruelty and ruthlessness and did not move a lip against it.

 

Rooz: Then why did Mr. Khatami support him?

 

Soroosh: This is the questionable issue for me. I do not even understand why some of our friends have thrown in their support for Mr. Mousavi. From a political perspective, it is completely perplexing to me. I will be frank with you: I do not like anyone who returns to politics with a claim to have an intellectual mission. A person who the determination to act must enter the field.

 

Rooz: The problem is that some people say if Karubi’s returns to office, it raises the same issue.

 

Soroosh: It depends on what is your expectation from the presidency in Iran. My expectation is that the atmosphere will open up a bit so that thinkers and reformers can do something inside the civil society. That the media becomes a bit freer, that people become a bit freer, and that the specter of fear is removed from them. That the judiciary becomes a bit cleaner. For example, I have not seen any hints and sensitivities in Mr. Mousavi’s messages about what is going on in the judiciary. This is while the heart of democracy and justice – not even talking a bout democracy or justice – is in the judiciary. This is a judiciary that we all know is infested with corruption. If the courage and will for this does not exist, then nothing can be done about the other branches and agencies of the government.

 

Rooz: But the head of the judiciary is not appointed by the president?

 

Soroosh: The president must have the courage to say these things. I say this to Mr. Karubi – and even to Mr. Mousavi – that if he comes to office he should take this seriously: the judiciary too should be an elected office. I think many of our problems will be solved this way and the monopoly power in the country too will be broken. I hope that the constitution that we write will be different from the ones that have been written in other parts of the world in this one respect and that we can show what justice is to the world. I believe that through reforming the judiciary we can come to real democracy and people’s rule.

 

Rooz: I would like to return to a point that you had mentioned to me in our earlier conversations which is that your preferred form of government is a liberal democracy. Do you still believe in this and if so, what is the role of religion in it?

 

Soroosh: Liberal democracy means a system in which rights have dominance over responsibilities. Liberalism means a paradigm in which rights are in competition with the paradigm of responsibilities. Liberal democracy means a system which is based on the rights of people and which has chosen democracy as its form of government. One of the rights of people is to exercise their religion, so in a liberal regime, the right to pursue your religion is completely observed. I am against combatant secularism where secularism is extended to the point where following religious pursuits and life for the believers becomes constrained. In other words if secularism becomes intolerant it will bear the same criticism that the religious followers will have, so this must be corrected. Following religious thought is completely respected in a liberal regime. Religious people must be allowed to pursue their values.